Jon K. Rust is publisher of the Southeast Missourian and co-president of Rust Communications.

Should Americans elect presidents according to likability?

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Associated Press

Two prominent stories in the New York Times over the weekend returned to a theme that is never far from presidential politics, especially since Hillary Clinton first ran: Is likability a bad metric for leadership? (My answer is, Yes, but not for the gender-specific reason of the NYT stories.) One piece was a front-page article. The second: "The Likability Trap," an editorial column.

An online search for the term "presidential likability" reveals dozens of stories since January 2019 mostly by prominent, largely liberal publications, most making the point that likability is an unfair term when evaluating women candidates. In her NYT opinion piece, historian Claire Bond Potter makes the relevancy of the topic clear, especially to those gunning to replace President Donald Trump: "Six women are competing for the Democratic nomination today. But guess what? We don't seem to like them either."

The reference "either," of course, is to Hillary Clinton, famously derided by candidate Barack Obama in 2008 as "likable enough" after a debate moderator questioned her ability to connect with voters.

Potter writes: "That Mrs. Clinton lost the nomination in 2008, to a political virtuoso but still a virtual novice, seemed for some illustrative of the troubled relationship between gender and likability in politics. But then she lost in 2016. That voters could see Donald Trump's rambling and bullying as authenticity seemed proof for many that the likability game was permanently rigged in favor of men."

Potter believes that "likability" was originally an invention by Madison Avenue to sell products, and as male-created, what's needed is a reinvention. "What would it mean if we could reinvent what it is that makes a candidate 'likable'? What if women no longer tried to fit a standard that was never meant for them and instead, we focused on redefining what likability might look like: not someone you want to get a beer with, but, say, someone you can trust to do the work?"

I'm all for putting "trust" above "beer," but I wonder if Potter and others aren't simply trying to find a tactic to advance a particular (women candidates) -- and partisan (Democratic) -- cause. "Having a beer with a candidate", after all, is a clumsy proxy for likability: it's not the definition. Nor is any likability metric using Hillary Clinton as a central data point reliable because of Clinton's complicated history, which we were reminded of recently by her touting how great her campaign was and claiming the election was "stolen" from her. For a candidate who failed to focus on some of the most important states (Wisconsin among them), there was much more at play than her "likability."

Moreover, Potter may dismiss the perception of Trump being "authentic" to many of his voters -- because he's a lying bully -- but what progressive writers usually fail to capture is that Trump supporters believe many of his prominent opponents -- and part of the media -- are lying bullies, too. Trustworthiness (a component of likability), unfortunately, is in short supply in today's politics, a condition made worse by a take-sides media.

The second Times story touched upon the same topic from a different angle. Written by Astead W. Herndon and Lisa Lerer, the headline is: "Asked if a Woman Can Win, 2020 Candidates Offer an Easy Answer: 'I Have'." The article points out that several women campaigning for the Democratic nomination have already scored victories in Trump-majority counties. For example, "In her 2018 Senate re-election campaign, [Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand] flipped 18 counties that had voted for Mr. Trump just two years earlier, and in 2012 she received a higher share of the vote in New York than any statewide candidate before or since -- better than Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, better than former Senator Hillary Clinton, better than former President Barack Obama."

The writers underline a frustration that surveys of Democratic voters indicate concerns whether these women are electable.

"As they now campaign for president, they are encountering some of the same misogyny that Mrs. Clinton faced when she ran in 2016. They are running up against assumptions voters and pundits have about what presidential leadership looks like, battling a presidential archetype where men are the only touchstones."

Among the complaints is that unproven men like Beto O'Rourke and Peter Buttigieg get much more media attention and have more success raising money, even though their resumes are considerably thinner. And the septuagenarian frontrunners, former vice-president Joe Biden, who flamed out ingloriously in previous presidential campaigns, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, are leading in large part simply because they're white males.

Here's my suggestion. It's early. The American public is just beginning to meet most of the candidates. Instead of members of the media trying to frame the race in terms they desperately hope will beat Donald Trump, how about letting the candidates make their arguments directly to the electorate? Seek to understand and explore political positions, character and experience -- authentically and without agenda -- not just the identity politics. That's the best chance to having a woman president some day.

Community discussion is important, and we encourage you to participate as a reader and commenter. Click here to see our Guidelines. We also encourage registered users to let us know if they see something
inappropriate on our site. You can do that by clicking "Report Comment"
below. Our goal is to create a place for robust and civil discourse about
our community, state and nation.

Should be who the voters think which candidate has the best interests of the USA in mind. Likeability in which the voter isn't turned off by the candidate's personality.

Schaefer's World

-- Posted by David Schaefer on Wed, May 8, 2019, at 1:42 PM

I kind of agree with david here. Likeability in a candidate is nice and does help win elections, but what they stand for matters more.

-- Posted by Eric Aide on Wed, May 8, 2019, at 8:46 PM

Likeability helps but being perceived as competent, honest, trustworthy and concerned about the welfare of the nation and having the strength of will to fight to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States are all more important.

-- Posted by Kenneth Ackman on Wed, May 8, 2019, at 10:23 PM

Integrity,competence and altruism are what I look for when voting. There are millions of people who fit this bill, but the Nation ran a popularity contest based on perceived financial proficiency.

-- Posted by Mary Morton on Thu, May 9, 2019, at 5:51 AM

I'd settle for a competent person of either party who manages to somehow avoid being corrupted by the corporations, special interests, the defense industry, and the neo cons.

-- Posted by Robert Polack on Thu, May 9, 2019, at 6:14 AM

What the candidate stands for is most important. Now days its like a popularity contest. I also believe that the media should be prevented from "taking" sides. The media just needs to tell the truth or don't say/print anything; stop with the political spins. I am beginning to think that the world must think our political system is a joke because it is.

-- Posted by Melinda McGregor on Thu, May 9, 2019, at 7:25 AM

Focusing on integrity, competence and altruism got us Jimmy Carter and 4 years of weakness and malaise.

I agree that today's electorate is more infatuated with popularity. Some of the questions from the media, etc. like "do you wear boxers or briefs" to Bill Clinton are examples of trying to make them look like commoners. I don't want to have a beer and high-five with them. I want them to get the government out of our way and quit sucking the life out of working Americans.

What the candidate stands for, to me, is of most importance but that depends on if they follow through with their promises.

IMO Trump got elected because a) Hillary Clinton was a horrible, corrupt candidate and b) Trump espoused ideals that hit home with Americans - jobs, the economy, unfair trade deals that Obama ignored for 8 years. The democrats under Obama and Hillary completely ignored American WORKERS vs. the welfare crowd. And those same democrats pushing for more "free stuff" and higher taxes will lose that huge chunk of voters as well in 2020.

I don't like all of Trump's tweets... I don't like his name calling and boisterous attitude... but that's not why I voted for him. Can any of you imagine where we would be if Hillary were president? Or Bernie? Or the other dem candidates? Seriously - think that through.

No! Millions of voters liked Donald Trump, loved him or, in large numbers, worshipped him in a kind of cult of personality way, and the result is a threat to the norms (restraint, tolerance, etc.) that serve as the crucial underpinnings of our constitutional republic.

-- Posted by stevemosley on Mon, May 13, 2019, at 12:40 AM

The "crucial underpinnings" of our constitutional republic aren't "norms" they are clearly that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

An oppressive federal government isn't an American norm. Taking 5 out of 12 months of the 59% of working Americans wages to pay for "free stuff" for the rest is an outrage... free cell phones, free housing, free food, free income, free health care, free internet... and now democrats want free college and a guaranteed free income?

The elite class of leftist/progressive politicians who pass laws that don't apply to them and get huge pay and benefits has to stop. Trump attacked the politicians in Washington, not the Constitution. IF you understood Trump voters you would know that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the number one reason Trump got elected. People are fed up with the corruption, greed and self serving politicians.

-- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, May 13, 2019, at 7:25 AM

Darn. Well, I tried. How about respect for separation of powers, checks and balances and judicial review? Do they qualify as norms and/or underlying constitutional principles that need to be understood and respected, particularly at the highest levels of government?

100's if not 1000's of laws are violated every year by our leaders in Washington yet the "norm" is to look the other way. If you or I ever did 1/10 of destruction of evidence and government information that Hillary Clinton and her staff did - 100% illegal without a doubt - we would be in jail. That seems to be the "norm" today.

Hillary Clinton and others should be in jail for the law breaking that went on. Donald Trump should be IF he did what she did. Lois Lerner should for weaponizing the IRS against democrat opponents. On and on... the "norm" is to give all these politicians and bureaucrats a pass.

Jail them all. Justice should be blind. It isn't.

-- Posted by Doug Williams on Tue, May 14, 2019, at 9:33 AM

Oh Google god why was my reply to Mr. Mosley deleted. Even if his was deleted mine had a meaning of it's own....guess the Google god is not very flexible.